DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, JAIPUR , JAIPUR vs. USHA BANKA, SIKAR

In the result, the appeals of the revenue in ITA No

1-4-1956 by the Finance Act, 1956. In the case of S.S. Gadgil (supra)\nadmittedly under clause (iii) of the proviso to section 34(I), as it then stood, a\nnotice of assessment or reassessment could not be issued against a person\ndeemed to be an agent of a non-resident under section 43

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, JAIPUR, JAIPUR vs. SARITA DEWAN, SIKAR

In the result, the appeals of the revenue in ITA No

1-4-1956 by the Finance Act, 1956. In the case of S.S. Gadgil (supra)\nadmittedly under clause (iii) of the proviso to section 34(I), as it then stood, a\nnotice of assessment or reassessment could not be issued against a person\ndeemed to be an agent of a non-resident under section 43

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, JAIPUR, JAIPUR vs. SUBHASH CHANDRA BANKA, SIKAR

In the result, the appeals of the revenue in ITA No

1-4-1956 by the Finance Act, 1956. In the case of S.S. Gadgil (supra)\nadmittedly under clause (iii) of the proviso to section 34(I), as it then stood, a\nnotice of assessment or reassessment could not be issued against a person\ndeemed to be an agent of a non-resident under section 43

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, JAIPUR, JAIPUR vs. PRIYA DEWAN, SIKAR

In the result, the appeals of the revenue in ITA No

1-4-1956 by the Finance Act, 1956. In the case of S.S. Gadgil (supra)\nadmittedly under clause (iii) of the proviso to section 34(I), as it then stood, a\nnotice of assessment or reassessment could not be issued against a person\ndeemed to be an agent of a non-resident under section 43

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, JAIPUR, JAIPUR vs. USHA BANKA, SIKAR

In the result, the appeals of the revenue in ITA No

1-4-1956 by the Finance Act, 1956. In the case of S.S. Gadgil (supra)\nadmittedly under clause (iii) of the proviso to section 34(I), as it then stood, a\nnotice of assessment or reassessment could not be issued against a person\ndeemed to be an agent of a non-resident under section 43

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, JAIPUR, JAIPUR vs. SARITA DEWAN, SIKAR

In the result, the appeals of the revenue in ITA No

1-4-1956 by the Finance Act, 1956. In the case of S.S. Gadgil (supra)\nadmittedly under clause (iii) of the proviso to section 34(I), as it then stood, a\nnotice of assessment or reassessment could not be issued against a person\ndeemed to be an agent of a non-resident under section 43

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, JAIPUR, JAIPUR vs. VIPUL BANKA, SIKAR

In the result, the appeals of the revenue in ITA No

1-4-1956 by the Finance Act, 1956. In the case of S.S. Gadgil (supra)\nadmittedly under clause (iii) of the proviso to section 34(I), as it then stood, a\nnotice of assessment or reassessment could not be issued against a person\ndeemed to be an agent of a non-resident under section 43

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, JAIPUR, JAIPUR vs. TRILOK DEWAN, SIKAR

In the result, the appeals of the revenue in ITA No

1-4-1956 by the Finance Act, 1956. In the case of S.S. Gadgil (supra)\nadmittedly under clause (iii) of the proviso to section 34(I), as it then stood, a\nnotice of assessment or reassessment could not be issued against a person\ndeemed to be an agent of a non-resident under section 43

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, JAIPUR, JAIPUR vs. ANIMESH AGARWAL, SIKAR

In the result, the appeals of the revenue in ITA No

1-4-1956 by the Finance Act, 1956. In the case of S.S. Gadgil (supra)\nadmittedly under clause (iii) of the proviso to section 34(I), as it then stood, a\nnotice of assessment or reassessment could not be issued against a person\ndeemed to be an agent of a non-resident under section 43

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, JAIPUR, JAIPUR vs. SNEHLATA AGARWAL, SIKAR

In the result, the appeals of the revenue in ITA No

1-4-1956 by the Finance Act, 1956. In the case of S.S. Gadgil (supra)\nadmittedly under clause (iii) of the proviso to section 34(I), as it then stood, a\nnotice of assessment or reassessment could not be issued against a person\ndeemed to be an agent of a non-resident under section 43

RAMESH CHAND BANSAL,BEAWAR vs. DCIT, AJMER

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

43,500/- for AY 2007-08, AY 2008-09, AY 2009-10 and AY 2010-11 respectively. Accepting the income declared in the returns of income filed u/s 153A, the AO completed the assessments without making any addition, whatsoever. No appeal was preferred by the assessee against the assessment so made. On the other hand, the AO initiated penalty

RAJ KUMAR JAIN,JAIPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE – 2, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

reassessment cannot be declared invalid in the penalty proceedings’’. View taken by the Hon’ble Karnataka High Court in the above judgment was indirectly affirmed by the Hon’ble Apex Court, when it dismissed an SLP filed by the Revenue against the judgment in the case of SSA’s Emerald Meadows (supra), specifically observing that there was no merits

LATE SHRI JITENDRA NAGAR THROUGH HIS L/R SMT. DEEPIKA NAGAR,BARAN vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD BARAN, BARAN

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: The Date Of Hearing.”

43 of 1961) (hereinafter referred to as the Income-tax Act) and (a) the completion of any action, referred to in clause (a) of sub-section (1) of section 3 of the said Act, relates to passing of any order for assessment or reassessment

DCIT, CC-2, JAIPUR vs. SHRI VIMAL CHAND SURANA(HUF), JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the revenue stands dismissed

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

reassessment of income of the person other than search persons based on seized material can only be made u/s 153C r.w.s. 153A and the provisions of section 147/148 of the Act are not applicable in such cases without appreciating the fact that it is nowhere written in any of the section of the Income Tax Act that proceedings

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, JAIPUR, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2 JAIPUR vs. SHRI PRAKASH CHAND SHARMA, C-42, GOKUL PATH VAISHALI NAGAR, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, appeals of the revenue are dismissed

Bench: Ao On The Charge Of Concealment Of Income.

43,429/- for the assessment years 2010-11, 11-12 and 12-13 respectively. The assessee challenged the levy of penalty before the ld. CIT (A) and raised a ground of validity of initiation of penalty as the AO has not specified the default against which the penalty proceedings were initiated by the AO. The ld. CIT (A) deleted

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, JAIPUR, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2 JAIPUR vs. SHRI PRAKASH CHAND SHARMA, C-42, GOKUL PATH VAISHALI NAGAR, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, appeals of the revenue are dismissed

Bench: Ao On The Charge Of Concealment Of Income.

43,429/- for the assessment years 2010-11, 11-12 and 12-13 respectively. The assessee challenged the levy of penalty before the ld. CIT (A) and raised a ground of validity of initiation of penalty as the AO has not specified the default against which the penalty proceedings were initiated by the AO. The ld. CIT (A) deleted

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, JAIPUR, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2 JAIPUR vs. SHRI PRAKASH CHAND SHARMA, C-42, GOKUL PATH VAISHALI NAGAR, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, appeals of the revenue are dismissed

Bench: Ao On The Charge Of Concealment Of Income.

43,429/- for the assessment years 2010-11, 11-12 and 12-13 respectively. The assessee challenged the levy of penalty before the ld. CIT (A) and raised a ground of validity of initiation of penalty as the AO has not specified the default against which the penalty proceedings were initiated by the AO. The ld. CIT (A) deleted

DCIT, JAIPUR vs. VIMAL CHAND SURANA HUF, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the revenue stands dismissed

section 147/148 of the Act are not applicable in such cases. No contrary decision has been brought to our notice. Accordingly, we hold that initiation of proceedings u/s 147/148 by the A.O. to reassess the income is illegal being without jurisdiction and consequently the reassessment order passed u/s 147 r.w.s. 143 (3) is also illegal and void ab initio